[rfc-i] RFC Format requirements draft
"Martin J. Dürst"
duerst at it.aoyama.ac.jp
Mon Sep 24 03:29:24 PDT 2012
On 2012/09/22 6:20, SM wrote:
> Hi Heather,
> At 12:57 21-09-2012, Heather Flanagan (RFC Series Editor) wrote:
>> Actually, that's an interesting question that came up while we were
>> drafting the document. Given that 2223bis was never published, is it
>> appropriate to refer to that document? Half the folks said yes, half
>> said no.
> For the folks who have been saying no, you could always remind them that
> it was established practice to reference 2223bis. The RFC Editor could
> publish 2223bis as Informational for the purposes of this exercise. Once
> the RFC Editor is done with it, it shouldn't be a problem to reclassify
> the RFC as Historic. The argument is that it's for the archival series.
> A "work in progress" reference could be used if it's easier. The RFC
> Editor also has the ability to make use of its long-lived URLs.
>> I see your point, but saying "non-US or other people with a tiny
>> alphabet" didn't sound good either. Any suggestions?
The main thing is that this is about "international" names, not
"international" authors. Some authors may be very international (live in
Greece, speak Thai,...) but if their name is "John Smith", then this
issue doesn't apply to them.
> Romanization of the author name will no longer be necessary; authors will
> be able to write their names in their own language.
For an author name in e.g. Arabic or Devanagari, Romanization is still
required. So I would change the current text:
* Will allow better support for international authors, in
particular allowing authors to spell their names in their
native character sets.
Into something like:
* Will allow to spell authors' names in their original form
(besides giving a Romanization for authors' names that don't
use the Latin Script).
Also, in this part ("Arguments for expanding to allow UTF-8:"), the last
two points (actual examples for protocols and discussions) should come
first, because they are most important.
Some additional points:
Arguments for mixed ASCII and UTF-8
* In order to keep documents as searchable as possible, ASCII
should be required for the main text of the document and UTF-8
allowed under clearly prescribed circumstances including author
names and references.
"mixed ASCII and UTF-8" is either an oxymoron or a pleonasm, because
UTF-8 includes ASCII. Also, given RFCs will continue to be in English,
more than 99% of all words will be written with characters from the
ASCII repertoire only. So much of the above point seems obvious, too.
If this is e.g. about continuing to use (even outside of protocol/format
examples) simple ' and " instead of more typographical quotes, or about
avoiding typographical ligatures such as the "fi" ligature, and so on,
it would be better to say so. If it's about something else, it would be
good to say so, too.
More information about the rfc-interest